Definitions
The case studies presented on this section do not confine themselves to the European Union. For example, CERN represents a different sort of European cooperation and organisation. However, some students and teachers may want to adapt the approach to specifically consider the European Union.
The term ‘global power’ has always been problematic in the context of the EU. Clearly the EU is a major global economic power. It's the largest trading union in the world. The value of its exports rivals other major trading powers, such as the US and Japan. All this in spite of the fact that it imports 50% of its energy, has not responded as effectively to the economic problems caused by the 2008 financial crisis as the USA and some other major trading powers, has higher unemployment rates and spends less on Research and Development than its biggest economic competitors. The case study exercise to which this commentary is attached takes a broad view of global power.
However, the term ‘global power’ has usually been reserved for those states which have the military capacity to effectively influence world events, either through intervention or the threat of it. This is the traditional concept of ‘power’ in international relations which has underpinned the idea of the Great Powers in the C19th and early C20th and the idea of “superpowers” in the Cold War and post-Cold war eras. In this respect, through use of, or threat of force, great powers, world powers, superpowers shape international politics according to their wishes and intentions. Their influence is worldwide, they can deploy their forces in virtually any part of the world and, to a large degree, they control or shape how the international system works.
Now in this respect many commentators on the EU tend to hold to the view that the EU’s system of governance and decision making, the absence of a unified military capacity and the diverging and conflicting interests of its member states in terms of their relations with other countries make it very difficult for the EU to develop and put into practice a coherent foreign policy. The more extreme criticisms describe the EU as an “economic giant and a political dwarf” or refer to “Euro-paralysis” when confronted by international or regional conflicts outside the EU that are likely to have major implications for the member states.
There are quite a few examples in the lifetime of the EC/EU which highlight the constraints that inhibit the EU from becoming a global political power in the same league as the USA or China (or the USSR during the Cold War).
Example, the EU and the former Yugoslavia
The conflicts between the former republics of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were seen as an important test for the case for the EU’s newly-created Common Foreign & Security Policy (created as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992). Initially the USA left intervention in the conflict to the EU. However, Germany acted unilaterally in recognising Croatia and Slovenia. Each member state seemed to offer its own solution and Brussels seemed to find it very difficult to achieve a consensus on what should be done. The war in Bosnia presented the EU with an even bigger challenge. The reliance on diplomacy, which was not backed up by force or the threat of force, was insufficient to encourage the belligerent countries to back down. In the end the United States intervened and most of the EU member states supported their role.
On the other hand, in recent times we have also seen examples of military intervention by the EU within a mandate from the United Nations.
Example, Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
A violent multinational conflict had been taking place there between Ugandan, Rwandan and Congolese forces along with various tribal militias since 1998. In 2003, as the crisis got even worse, the UN called for an interim multinational force to go in and stabilise the situation whilst UN diplomats established a Mission there. France agreed to take the lead on this if it had a mandate from the rest of the EU. After 3 months’ the region was handed over to the responsibility of the UN Mission. This was thought to be so successful that it led to the Joint Declaration on UN-EU Coordination in Crisis Management, 24 September 2003 (just a few days after the conclusion of Operation Artemis).
This is not an example of the EU becoming a global military power or global superpower, but it highlights the unique features of effective EU interventions into foreign affairs. These are: multilateralism, coordination, cooperation with other international and supranational organisations such as the UN, and mandates from the EU as a whole to the forces of specific member states to act on its behalf. The EU deliberately does not act independently in the way that military superpowers have done and continue to do. It consciously looks to build a coalition, sometimes with other powers, but more often with international and other supranational organisations, to achieve very specific goals within limited timescales.
A global power for the 21st century?
The EU is not a global power in the traditional sense. To play the role of a world power or superpower capable of imposing its wishes on the international system it would need military as well as economic power and it would need a much higher degree of political integration than at present. However, it has been argued that the EU has never sought to be a global political power. There is nothing about this as a potential aim in its founding treaties, or in subsequent treaties, or on other policy-related documents. Other concepts have emerged to describe the “power” of the EU. One of these is “civilian power”. This has been defined by Maull as “the acceptance of the necessity of co-operation with others in the pursuit of international objectives; the concentration on non-military, primarily economic, means to secure goals, with military power left as a residual instrument….and a willingness to develop supranational structures to address critical issues.” [H. Maull, (1990). Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers. Foreign Affairs, 69 (5), pp. 91-106.] The idea of the EU as a civilian power emerged in the 1970s and gained credence after the international oil crisis which showed that OPEC could exercise a great deal of international influence through its control of a scarce commodity rather than because of its military power.
Another concept which has been applied to the EU as a potential world power is “normative power”. The argument here is that civilian and military power as concepts concentrate too much on the EU behaving as a nation state (or a United States of Europe where the executive power has similar powers to the federal government of the United States). Instead the argument here is that the EU has the power to attract rather than the power to coerce. [Ian Manners, Normative Power. Europe Reconsidered, Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (2) 2006 p.182-199]. The political scientist Joseph Nye developed the concept of ‘soft power’ which is very similar to ‘normative power’. He defines it as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.” Timothy Garton Ash described this in 2003 (just before the fifth enlargement of the EU) as the soft power which leads to not only millions of people but also whole states, wanting to enter it.
The attraction lies in the EU’s commitment to a set of core values and principles. Perhaps the best example of this is the enlargements of the European Union since 2000. Undoubtedly the Single Market was an important factor in the applications to join but so was the idea of “the return to Europe” and its core values and principles. The EU’s view on the terms of accession for Turkey and some Balkan States highlights the importance given to these values and principles.
The EU has, and is, also playing a role as a global leader in environmental issues going back to its role in ensuring the Kyoto Protocol survived the US refusal to ratify it in 2001, and again with the 2008 EU Climate Change Agreement, the Emissions Trading System, the EU’s role at the UN Conference on Climate Change in December 2009, and so on.
This all suggests that, regardless of whether we talk about military, civilian, normative or soft power, the European Union has the potential for being a global player in circumstances where there are numerous ‘players’ involved. The EU’s involvement is attractive to the other players; a consensus has to be built; cooperation is needed; compromises are inevitable, and the EU seeks to build a coalition with other international and supranational organisations such as the United Nations rather than simply with nation state allies who may be in competition with each other. It is good at this because that is how the EU itself works.